CANCER INSTITUTE (WIA) Vs. SRI MATHA TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, Cancer Institute(WIA) registered society represented by its Secretary Dr.A.V.Lakshmanan has filed the present suit against Sri Matha Trust, Represented by its Founder and Managing Trustee, Mr.V.Krishnamoorthy, and Rajasthani Association, Tamil Nadu, seeking a judgment and decree directing the 1st defendant to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit property namely, Dharmasala situated within the campus of Cancer Institute, at Adyar, Chennai and for a direction against the 1st defendant to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- per month towards damages for use and occupation from the date of the suit, till the date of decree and thereafter at the same rate till the 1st Defendant vacates and hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and for costs.

(2.) The plaintiff Cancer Institute (WIA) is a registered Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is represented in this suit by its Secretary Dr.A.V.Lakshmanan. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the buildings in the land at East Canal Bank Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. The 1st defendant, Sri Matha Trust, represented by its Founder and Managing Trustee, V.Krishnamoorthy, had undertaken the responsibility to take care of the day to day management of the Dharmasala at the Cancer Institute.

(3.) The 2nd defendant, M/s. Rajasthani Association Tamil Nadu, had been joined only as a formal party to the suit. No specific relief has been sought as against the 2nd defendant. The land on which the building were the plaintiff functions belongs to the Government of Tamil Nadu. It had been leased out to the plaintiff on a long term basis. The building were the 1st defendant carries on its functions namely, to give shelter and provide food to the patients suffering from cancer who come seeking treatment to the plaintiff, had been constructed by the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant had been in permissive occupation of the Dharmasala. Their permission was terminated by the plaintiff by notice dated 27.12.2012. The 1st defendant was called upon to vacate and hand over the possession of the premises on or before 01.04.201